Bacterial contamination of computer touch screens

Gerba, Charles P.; Wuollet, Adam; Raisanen, Peter; Lopez, Gerardo U.

doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2015.10.013

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 174 were selected for full-text review, of which 99 did not meet our criteria and were excluded, leaving a total of 75 studies in the final analysis (figure 1). 16–90…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies (50) reported primarily on device contamination rates (mostly using cross-sectional samples) 17–23 26 29 32–36 38 41–46 49 50 52–56 60 62 64–66 68–76 81–86 90. Another 25 studies used interventional designs16 24 25 27 28 30 31 37 39 40 47 48 57–59 61 63 67 77–80 87–89; most reported contamination rates before and after a disinfection or cleaning process (and therefore also contributed data on baseline contamination rates).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine the extent and type of microbial contamination of computer peripheral devices used in healthcare settings, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce contamination of these devices and establish the risk of patient and healthcare worker infection from contaminated devices.DesignSystematic reviewMethodsWe searched four online databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus for articles reporting primary data collection on contamination of computer-related equipment (including keyboards, mice, laptops and tablets) and/or studies demonstrating the effectiveness of a disinfection technique. Pooling of contamination rates was conducted where possible, and narrative synthesis was used to describe the rates of device contamination, types of bacterial and viral contamination, effectiveness of interventions and any associations between device contamination and human infections.ResultsOf the 4432 records identified, a total of 75 studies involving 2804 computer devices were included. Of these, 50 studies reported contamination of computer-related hardware, and 25 also measured the effects of a decontamination intervention. The overall proportion of contamination ranged from 24% to 100%. The most common microbial contaminants were skin commensals, but also included potential pathogens including methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus,Clostridiumdifficile, vancomycin-resistantenterococci andEscherichia coli. Interventions demonstrating effective decontamination included wipes/pads using isopropyl alcohol, quaternary ammonium, chlorhexidine or dipotassium peroxodisulfate, ultraviolet light emitting devices, enhanced cleaning protocols and chlorine/bleach products. However, results were inconsistent, and there was insufficient data to demonstrate comparative effectiveness. We found little evidence on the link between device contamination and patient/healthcare worker colonisation or infection.ConclusionsComputer keyboards and peripheral devices are frequently contaminated; however, our findings do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about their relative impact on the transmission of pathogens or nosocomial infection. Additional studies measuring the incidence of healthcare-acquired infections from computer hardware, the relative risk they pose to healthcare and evidence for effective and practical cleaning methods are needed.

show abstract

“…Of these, 174 were selected for full-text review, of which 99 did not meet our criteria and were excluded, leaving a total of 75 studies in the final analysis (figure 1). 16–90…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies using whole genome sequencing were able to demonstrate that the primary mode of transmission is not from patient to patient but by contact with remaining spores in the environment or on the hands of healthcare personnel [ 72 ]. As a graphic example, Gerba et al [ 73 ] were able to cultivate C. difficile from ICU touch screens. Considering the number of colonized and asymptomatic patients, it may be necessary to discuss performing C. difficile decontamination in the rooms of asymptomatic carriers, implying a screening of all patients for preventive purposes.…”

Section: Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sleeping with the enemy: Clostridium difficile infection in the intensive care unit

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last years, there was an increase in the number and severity of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) in all medical settings, including the intensive care unit (ICU). The current prevalence of CDI among ICU patients is estimated at 0.4–4% and has severe impact on morbidity and mortality. An estimated 10–20% of patients are colonized with C. difficile without showing signs of infection and spores can be found throughout ICUs. It is not yet possible to predict whether and when colonization will become infection. Figuratively speaking, our patients are sleeping with the enemy and we do not know when this enemy awakens.Most patients developing CDI in the ICU show a mild to moderate disease course. Nevertheless, difficult-to-treat severe and complicated cases also occur. Treatment failure is particularly frequent in ICU patients due to comorbidities and the necessity of continued antibiotic treatment. This review will give an overview of current diagnostic, therapeutic, and prophylactic challenges and options with a special focus on the ICU patient.First, we focus on diagnosis and prognosis of disease severity. This includes inconsistencies in the definition of disease severity as well as diagnostic problems. Proceeding from there, we discuss that while at first glance the choice of first-line treatment for CDI in the ICU is a simple matter guided by international guidelines, there are a number of specific problems and inconsistencies. We cover treatment in severe CDI, the problem of early recognition of treatment failure, and possible concepts of intensifying treatment. In conclusion, we mention methods for CDI prevention in the ICU.

show abstract

“…The use of touchless gestures, especially when applied to public displays, has many advantages. Among them, touchless gestural interaction limits vandalism by placing displays in unreachable places [31], keeping a high hygiene level of the screen surface [19], and removing constraints to the display size (see, for instance, works on media façades [9]). Walter et al [34] focused their work on describing existing solutions found in literature, for user representation in touchless gestural applications.…”

Section: Gestural Interfaces and The Use Of Avatarmentioning

confidence: 99%

Child-display interaction

Rubegni

Gentile

Malizia

et al. 2019

Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the last decade, touchless gestural interfaces have been widely studied as one of the most promising interaction paradigms in the context of pervasive displays. In particular, avatars and silhouettes have been proved to be effective in communicating the touchless gestural interactivity supported by displays. In the paper, we take a child-display interaction perspective by exploring avatarbased touchless gestural interfaces. We believe that large displays offer an opportunity to stimulate child experience and engagement, for instance when learning about art, as well as bringing a number of challenges. The purpose of this study is twofold: 1) identifying the relevant aspects of children's interactions with a large display based on a touchless avatar-based interface, and 2) understanding the impact on recalling the content that arises from the interaction. We engaged 107 children over a period of five days during a public event at the university premises. Collected data were analyzed, and the outcomes transformed into three lessons learnt for informing the future design.

show abstract

Bacterial contamination of computer touch screens

Cited by 39 publications

References 12 publications

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

What’s on your keyboard? A systematic review of the contamination of peripheral computer devices in healthcare settings

Sleeping with the enemy: Clostridium difficile infection in the intensive care unit

Child-display interaction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About